12. Personality, Health, And Coping

8/12/2019 12. Personality, Health, And Coping

1/30

http://ccr.sagepub.com

Cross-Cultural Research

DOI: 10.1177/10693971093357292009;

2009; 43; 251 originally published online May 19,Cross-Cultural ResearchKwang Ng

Shyh Shin Wong, Boon Ooi Lee, Rebecca P. Ang, Tian P. S. Oei and AikPersonality, Health, and Coping: A Cross-National Study

http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/43/3/251The online version of this article can be found at:

Published by:

http://www.sagepublications.com

On behalf of:Society for Cross-Cultural Research

can be found at:Cross-Cultural ResearchAdditional services and information for

http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertsEmail Alerts:

http://ccr.sagepub.com/subscriptionsSubscriptions:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navReprints:

http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navPermissions:

http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/43/3/251Citations

at Univ of Newcastle upon Tyne on August 10, 2009http://ccr.sagepub.comDownloaded from
http://www.sccr.org/http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://ccr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ccr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/43/3/251http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/content/refs/43/3/251http://www.sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.navhttp://www.sagepub.com/journalsReprints.navhttp://ccr.sagepub.com/subscriptionshttp://ccr.sagepub.com/cgi/alertshttp://www.sccr.org/


2/30

251

Cross-Cultural Research

Volume 43 Number 3

August 2009 251-279

2009 SAGE Publications

10.1177/1069397109335729

http://ccr.sagepub.comhosted at

http://online.sagepub.com

Authors Note: Funding for this research is facilitated partially by a research grant from theNational Institute of Education. We thank Veronica Leng from Ngee Ann Polytechnic for help-

ing with the data collection. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to

Shyh Shin Wong, Psychological Studies Academic Group, National Institute of Education,

Nanyang Technological University, 1 Nanyang Walk, Singapore 637616, Republic of

Singapore; e-mail:[email protected].

Personality, Health,and Coping

A Cross-National Study

Shyh Shin Wong

Boon Ooi Lee

Rebecca P. AngNanyang Technological University, Singapore

Tian P. S. OeiUniversity of Queensland, Australia

Aik Kwang NgSIM University, Singapore

This study explored group and relational differences in personality, health,

and coping across 189 Australian students and 243 Singaporean students.

Life Orientation TestRevised showed a one-factor structure for Australiansbut a two-factor structure for Singaporeans. Australians tended to be more

agreeable, more conscientious, more optimistic, more satisfied with their

lives, while Singaporeans tended to be more neurotic and more pessimistic.

Singaporeans tended to utilize less frequent adaptive and maladaptive coping

strategies. Neuroticism was a significant predictor for state-trait anxiety and

stress, while unipolar optimism was a significant predictor for life satisfac-

tion and unipolar pessimism was a significant predictor for trait anxiety for

both samples. Bipolar optimism was a significant predictor for trait anxiety

and life satisfaction for both samples whereas it was a significant predictorfor state anxiety for the Singaporean sample. Optimists, pessimists, and neu-

rotics in both samples tended to use different coping strategies. Limitations

and implications are discussed.

Keywords: extraversion; agreeableness; conscientiousness; neuroticism;

openness to experience; optimism; pessimism; anxiety; stress;

physical symptoms; life satisfaction; coping

http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/


3/30

252 Cross-Cultural Research

Introduction

A growing body of studies suggests that dispositional optimism is ben-eficial for physical and psychological well-being as well as protecting

individuals from the negative effects of physical and psychological prob-

lems (Scheier & Carver, 1987, 1993; Scheier, Carver, & Bridges, 1994,

2001). Dispositional optimism is one of the several theoretical perspectives

that frame the construct of optimism as an individual difference (Carroll,

Sweeny, & Shepperd, 2006; E. C. Chang, 2001a; Peterson, 2000). The

other theoretical constructs that are based on individual differences include

attributional or explanatory style and dispositional hope. Dispositional opti-mism has been defined as a form of positive thinking in the holding of

generalized positive outcome expectancies about the future. Conversely,

dispositional pessimism can be defined as generalized negative outcome

expectancies about the future.

Despite the cumulative evidence supporting the construct of disposi-

tional optimism as a promising psychological construct for understanding

health outcomes, insufficient attention has been paid to cross-cultural com-

parisons. First, studies on cross-cultural differences and generalizability ofprevious findings for different cultural groups are few. Most of the research

on optimism has been conducted in United Statesa Western individualis-

tic and egalitarian society (Hofstede, 1994). Second, there are more reported

studies of dispositional optimism conducted with Westerners than those

conducted with Easterners. Third, for the majority of cross-cultural studies

that were conducted, the focus was on group differences in optimism and

pessimism between Easterners and Westerners. However, group differences

tell us little about relational differences (E. C. Chang, 2001a). Fourth,

although emotions and associated coping approaches have been subjected

to intensive research, their relationships to larger personality constructs

have not been the subject of sufficient work in one culture, much less cross-

national research. And most of the few available cross-cultural studies are

based on different cultural groups within the same country rather than

cross-cultural differences between different countries. Cross-national cross-

cultural research offers a slightly different perspective compared to within-

national cross-cultural research in that people from different countries may

be exposed to greater sociopolitical differences compared to people fromthe same country. This perspective has been utilized by worldwide surveys

on values, stress, and happiness.



4/30

Wong et al. / Personality, Health, and Coping 253

The Present Study

The present study focused on both types of cross-cultural studies in com-paring the findings between Australia and Singapore as an attempt to over-

come some of the limitations of previous research. In addition, the choice

of comparing Australia and Singapore may contribute new understanding to

the field of cross-cultural research in personality, health, and coping. First,

little research on personality, health, and coping had been carried out in both

countries, especially Singapore. Moreover, no study to date had compared

these two countries. Second, the present study allows comparison between

two countries, whose people have been found to differ on a number of psy-chological dimensions. For example, Australia has been found to be primar-

ily a Western individualistic and egalitarian society, whereas Singapore is

mainly an Asian collectivistic and elitist/hierarchical society (Hofstede, 1994).

Previous studies have also shown that tertiary students from Singapore

reported less frequent thoughts about life satisfaction and happiness than

Australian tertiary students (Diener, 2000). Second, although both countries

are located in the same region, with people who are mainly migrants who had

adopted a Western economic and cosmopolitan outlook, they differ sociopo-litically and ethnically. Australia is predominately populated by Caucasians

while Singapore is largely consisted of Chinese.

Cross-Cultural Group Differences

Dimensionality of optimism. The present study examined two cross-

cultural group differences. First, it explores the dimensionality of optimism as

measured by the revised Life Orientation Test (LOT-R) across the

Australian and Singaporean samples as there are divided views concerning

the dimensionality of optimism and pessimism as measured by Life Orientation

Test (LOT; Scheier & Carver, 1985) and LOT-R (Scheier et al., 1994) in

previous studies. Scheier and Carver (1985), who developed the construct of

dispositional optimism and the LOT, conceptualized optimism and pessi-

mism as polar opposites on a unidimensional (bipolar) continuum. The

unidimensional conceptualization assumes that a person cannot be both

optimistic and pessimistic but rather is either optimistic or pessimistic.

However, a number of American researchers (e.g., E. C. Chang, DZurilla,& Maydeu-Olivares, 1994; L. Chang & McBride-Chang, 1996; Marshall,

Wortman, Kusulas, Hervig, & Vickers, 1992) have found that the LOT

loaded onto two partially independent factors when subjected to exploratory

http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/http://ccr.sagepub.com/


5/30


factor analyses. A Chinese version of the LOT (CLOT) was also found to

be bidimensional in nature (Cheng & Hamid, 1997).

As for the revised LOT, the dimensionality was found to be different fordifferent cultural samples. Lai and Yues (2000) confirmatory factor analy-

ses of the responses to Chinese LOT-R found support for a one-factor model

for the Hong Kong Chinese sample and a two-sample model for the main-

land Chinese sample. Taken together, these factor-analytic studies suggest

that the dimensionality of dispositional optimism as measured by LOT-R

varies across different samples.

Due to the mixed results on the dimensionality issue across different

samples, exploratory factor analyses were used to explore the dimensional-ity of LOT-R in the two cross-national samples in the present study. It was

hypothesized that there was a cross-national difference in the dimensional-

ity of LOT-R in the two samples (Hypothesis 1). We expected that the

result for the Singaporean sample would be a two-factor solution given that

Singaporeans were influenced by both the British as well as Asian heritage

while a one-factor solution could fit with the idea that the Caucasian

Australians tended to be influenced by just the British heritage alone.

Personality, health, and coping.The present study also examined cross-

national differences in mean scores for each variable studied in the present

study, namely, extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism,

openness to experience, optimism, pessimism, state-trait anxiety, stress,

physical symptoms, life satisfaction, and coping. Past research had found

mixed results. E. C. Chang (2001a) found that Asian Americans were not

significantly lower in their levels of unipolar optimism compared to

European Americans. Similarly, there were no significant differences in

depressive symptoms, physical symptoms, use of problem solving, cogni-

tive restructuring, emotional expression, social support, wishful thinking,

and self-criticism. However, Asian Americans were found to be signifi-

cantly more pessimistic (unipolar scale) than European Americans. Asian

Americans also reported significantly more psychological symptoms and

used more problem avoidance and social withdrawal strategies to cope with

stress situations than did European Americans.

As for cross-national differences in the personality and mental health

dimensions, Eysenck and Chan (1982) found that adults in Hong Kong scoredhigher on psychoticism and social desirability and lower on extraversion than

did British adults. Furnham and Cheng (1999) also found that British stu-

dents reported higher levels of extraversion, happiness, and mental health. In

sum, it appears that in general, Asians tended to report more negativity than

Caucasians. Hence, it was hypothesized in the present study that there were



6/30


some cross-cultural differences in the mean scores of the variables under

studied, with Singaporean students reporting more psychological problems

and less life satisfaction than Australian students (Hypothesis 2).

Cross-Cultural Relational Differences

The present study examined cross-cultural relational differences in the

relationship between optimism and selected mental health outcome vari-

ables in two ways. First, it explored the incremental unique value of the

extraversion, agreeableness, conscientiousness, neuroticism, openness to

experience, and optimism in predicting stress, state-trait anxiety, physicalsymptoms, and life satisfaction after controlling for age and gender across

the two countries. In addition to neuroticism, we also included additional

personality constructs in the five-factor model (FFM) of personality because

Boland and Cappeliez (1997) found that dispositional optimism may also

be related to other Big Five personality factors, such as extraversion.

Similarly, Fontaine, Manstead, and Wagner (1993) also proposed that the

construct of dispositional optimism has to be evaluated in the context of

higher-order personality domains (i.e., the Big Five) to help eliminate theuse of redundant personality variables.

Past research had found some cross-cultural relational differences. E. C.

Chang (1996a) conducted a series of separate stepwise regression analyses

to identify significant predictors of each maladjustment measure for Asian

Americans and European Americans. For Asian Americans, E. C. Chang

found that optimism, problem solving, and pessimism were the only signifi-

cant predictors for depressive symptoms and account for increasing amount

of variance in depressive symptoms, respectively. For psychological symp-

tomatology, social withdrawal and optimism were the only significant

predictors and account for increasing amount of variance in psychological

symptomatology, respectively. For physical symptoms, optimism and prob-

lem solving were the only significant predictors and account for increasing

amount of variance in physical symptoms, respectively.

For European Americans, the only significant predictors of depressive

symptoms found were pessimism, wishful thinking, optimism, and self-

criticism. These four predictors were found to account for increasing

amount of variance in depressive symptoms, respectively. For psychologi-cal symptomatology, pessimism, self-criticism, gender, and social withdrawal

were the only significant predictors and account for increasing amount of

variance in psychological symptomatology, respectively. For physical

symptoms, gender was the only significant predictor. In sum, one major

cross-cultural difference was that lack of optimism and pessimism were



7/30


predictors of psychological and physical maladjustment among Asian

Americans, whereas pessimism and lack of optimism were predictors of

psychological maladjustment among European Americans. In our presentstudy, we hypothesized that there were some cross-cultural differences in

the significant predictors accounting for variances in the two samples after

controlling for age and gender (Hypothesis 3).

Second, the present study explored the differences in the relationships

between optimism and neuroticism with coping across Australia and

Singapore. In one study, Scheier, Weintraub, and Carver (1986) found

positive correlations between optimism (measured by LOT) and problem-

focused coping, positive reinterpretation, acceptance/resignation, andseeking of social support (for men only). Optimism was negatively associ-

ated with denial and distancing. In another study, they found positive cor-

relations between optimism and problem-focused coping, suppression of

competing activities, and seeking social support. Optimism was negatively

associated with focusing on/expressing feelings and disengagement. Scheier

et al. (1994) found that positive correlations between optimism (LOT-R)

and active coping, planning, suppression of competing activities, positive

reinterpretation and growth, seeking instrumental social support, seekingemotional social support, turning to religion, and focusing on and venting

of emotions, even after controlling for neuroticism. Optimism was nega-

tively associated with behavioral disengagement, even after controlling for

neuroticism. In sum, optimism was found to be positively correlated with

adaptive coping strategies and negatively correlated with adaptive coping

strategies, even after controlling for neuroticism. Unfortunately, for the

aforementioned classic studies, cross-cultural data were not collected or

analyzed.

As for cross-cultural relational differences between optimism and pes-

simism with coping, E. C. Chang (1996a) found different and similar pat-

terns of correlations for Asian Americans and European Americans. The

most striking difference found was that pessimism was found to be nega-

tively correlated with use of problem solving and expressing emotions for

European Americans. In contrast, pessimism was found to be correlated

positively with use of these coping strategies for Asian Americans.

Scheier et al. (1994) also used partial correlational analysis to explore

relationship between optimism and coping while controlling for neuroticism.In the present study, we hypothesized that there were some cross-cultural

differences in the partial correlational patterns (controlling for neuroticism)

between optimism and coping versus neuroticism and coping across

Australian and Singaporean samples (Hypothesis 4).



8/30


Method

Participants

In all, 189 undergraduate respondents from Australia and 243 under-

graduate students from Singapore participated in the study. The mean age

in Australia is 19.02 years (SD=3.19), whereas mean age in Singapore is

17.85 years (SD=1.97). Participants in Australia were 68.8% (n=130)

female and 31.2% (n=59) male, whereas participants in Singapore were

66.3% (n=161) female and 33.7% (n=82) male.

Racial composition in Australia consists of 75.1% (n=

142) Caucasian,2.1% (n=4) Chinese, 0.5% (n=1) Indian, and 22.2% (n=42) who did not

indicate any ethnic identification. Racial composition in Singapore consists

of 66.7% (n = 162) Chinese, 13.2% (n = 32) Indian, 10.7% (n = 26)

Malaysian, 7.4% (n = 18) other racial groups (which includes all other

ethnic groups not listed), and 2.1% (n=5) who did not indicate any ethnic

identification.

Religious affiliation in Australia consists of 1.1% (n=2) Buddhists,

25.4% (n= 48) Christians, 0.5% (n= 1) Muslims, 28.6% (n= 54) no

religious affiliation, 39.2% (n=74) other religious affiliations, and 5.3%

(n=10) missing data, whereas religious affiliation in Singapore consists

8.2% (n= 20) Buddhists, 25.1% (n=61) Christians, 7% (n=17) Hindus,

18.1% (n=44) Muslims, 25.1% (n=61) no religious affiliation, 14% (n=34)

other religious affiliations, and 1.2% (n=3) missing data. Participation was

voluntary and responses were anonymous.

MeasuresBig Five Mini-Marker ScaleBrief Version. The Mini-Marker Scale

(Saucier, 1994) consists of 40 adjectives (8 adjectives for each of the five Big

Five traitsNeuroticism Extraversion, Openness to Experience, Agreeableness,

and Conscientiousness), which may be positively worded or negatively

worded. This set of 40 adjectives was selected from Goldbergs (1992) 100

adjective markers for the Big Five factor structure. Participants were asked

to indicate how well a trait described himself or herself on a scale from

1 (trait does not describe me well) to 5 (trait describes me well). TheMini-Marker Scale has been demonstrated to have adequate reliability and

validity estimates (Saucier, 1994).



9/30


Life Orientation TestRevised. The Life Orientation TestRevised

(Scheier et al., 1994) was designed to measure dispositional optimism. It is

a shorter version of the LOT, with just 10 items (including 4 filler items),with responses that range from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly agree).

Of these, 3 items are positively worded and 3 are negatively worded. In the

present study, two scoring methods were utilized to derive either a unipolar

or unidimensional measurement of optimism or two bipolar or bidimen-

sional measurements of two separate but related constructs of optimism and

pessimism. For the bipolar measurement of optimism, the 3 negatively

worded items are reversed and added to the scores of the 3 positively

worded items. For the unipolar measurement of optimism, only the 3 posi-tively worded items are added. For the unipolar measurement of pessimism,

only 3 negatively worded items are added.

The revised instrument is more appropriate for the study as it has essen-

tially removed the content overlap with coping that is found in the earlier

LOT version. Scheier et al. (1994) reported that LOT and LOT-R showed

considerable overlap between the two measures at .95. The LOT-R has

been demonstrated to have adequate reliability and validity estimates (Scheier

et al., 1994).

State Trait Anxiety Inventory (STAI). The STAI is a 40-item instrument

developed by Spielberger (1983). This instrument consists of a 20-item trait

anxiety scale and a 20-item state anxiety scale. This inventory evaluates

feelings of apprehension, tension, nervousness, and worry, which increase

in response to physical danger and psychological stress. The State-Anxiety

Scale consists of 20 statements that respondents feel at the time of testing. The

Trait-Anxiety Scale consists of 20 statements that assess how respondents

generally feel. Respondents rate each statement on a Likert-type scale from

1 (not at all) to 4 (very much so). This instrument has adequate reliability

and validity estimates (Spielberger, 1983).

Stress scale. The stress scale is a seven-item scale taken from Depression,

Anxiety, and Stress Scales21 (DASS-21; Lovibond & Lovibond, 1995).

Respondents indicated the frequency of feeling stressed on a 0 to 3 scale

ranging from 0 (did not apply to me at all) to 3 (applied to me very much

or most of the time). The DASS-21 has been shown to possess adequate

reliability and construct validity estimates. The stress scale has an alpha of

.90 (Henry & Crawford, 2005).



10/30


Cohen-Hoberman Inventory of Physical Symptoms (CHIPS). The Cohen-

Hoberman Inventory of Physical Symptoms (Cohen & Hoberman, 1983)

was used to assess the respondents physical well-being over the past 2 weeks.The CHIPS is a list of 33 physical symptoms, which had been carefully

selected so as to exclude symptoms of an obviously psychological nature

(e.g., feeling nervous or depressed). Respondents are asked to indicate the

extent to which they are bothered by these physical symptoms on a 5-point

scale ranging from 0 (I have not been bothered by the problem) to 4 (I have

been extremely bothered by the problem), with lower scores indicating bet-

ter physical well-being (i.e., lower symptom intensity). This scale has

adequate reliability and validity estimates.

Satisfaction With Life Scale (SWLS).The Satisfaction With Life Scale

(Diener, Emmons, Larsen, & Griffin, 1985) is a concise five-item measure

of global life satisfaction and is suitable for all ages, from adolescents to

adults. Respondents indicated their extent of agreement with each of the

item (e.g., In most ways my life is close to my ideal) on a 7-point Likert

scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). The reliabil-

ity and validity of the SWLS has been considered adequate (Diener et al.,

1985; Neto, 1993; Pavot, Diener, Colvin, & Sandvik, 1991).

Brief COPE. The Brief COPE (Carver, 1997) is a multidimensional cop-

ing inventory that is used to assess the different ways in which people

respond to stress. It was developed from the 53-item Coping Operations

Preference Enquiry (COPE) questionnaire (Carver, Scheier, & Weintraub,

1989) that has demonstrated good psychometric properties as an assess-

ment of dispositional and situational coping efforts. The Brief COPE was

derived specifically to reduce total participant response burden withoutcompromising the integrity of the instrument. It consists of 14 scales (i.e.,

Active Coping, Planning, Positive Reframing, Acceptance, Humor, Religion,

Emotional Support, Instrumental Support, Self-Distraction, Denial, Venting,

Substance Use, Behavioral Disengagement, and Self-Blame). Each scale

consists of two items that reflect the type of coping (e.g., for the scale of

Venting, the items consist of I have been saying things to let my unpleas-

ant feelings escape and I have been expressing my negative feelings).

Participants are asked to respond to each item on a Likert-type scale of 1(I usually dont do this at all) to 4 (I usually do this a lot). Despite the fact

that the scale had two items each, their reliabilities ranged from .50 to .90

(Carver, 1997).



11/30


Results

Descriptive Statistics

The means, standard deviations, and standardized coefficient alphas of

the measures used in this study are shown in Table 1. The measures used in

this study were also found to have internal consistency reliability estimates

mostly of acceptable values, with standardized coefficient alphas ranging

from .40 to .94 for the Australian sample and .50 to .91 for the Singaporean

sample. The lowest standardized coefficient alphas of .40 and .91 were

calculated from Brief COPES subscales consisting of two items each.

Cross-Cultural Group Differences

To test for Hypothesis 1, which posited cross-national difference in the

dimensionality of LOT-R in the two samples, LOT-Rs six items were sub-

mitted to principal-axis factor analysis. In the Australian sample, one factor

with eigenvalues greater than 1.0 and accounting for 45.37% of the vari-

ance was found. In the Singaporean sample, two factors with eigenvalues

greater than 1.0 accounted for 42.47% of the variance after an oblimin rota-

tion, of which the first factor accounted for 32.59% while the second factor

accounted for 9.87%. For both samples, scree plots of factor roots were

consistent with the extraction of the factors. Factor loadings for the factor

solutions are shown in Table 2. As shown in Table 2, the items had no double

loading and no loading less than .3.

To test for Hypothesis 2, which posited some cross-cultural differences

in the mean scores of the variables under study, independent sample ttest

analyses were conducted for the various measures used in the study (seeTable 1). Independent sample t-test results showed that the Australian par-

ticipants tended to be more agreeable, more conscientious, more optimistic

(for bipolar scale only), and more satisfied with their lives than the

Singaporean participants. In contrast, Singaporean participants tended to be

more neurotic and more pessimistic. Cross-cultural differences were also

found in the mean scores of coping strategies used by participants in the

two samples. Australian participants were found to use more distraction,

active coping, denial, substance use, emotional support, instrumental sup-port, behavioral disengage, venting, positive reframing, planning, humor,

acceptance, and self-blame when compared to Singaporean participants.

Using religion was the only strategy that was not significantly different for

the two samples of participants.



12/30


Cross-Cultural Relational DifferencesTable 3 showed the zero-order correlations for personality, bipolar opti-

mism, unipolar optimism, unipolar pessimism, state-trait anxiety, stress,

physical symptoms, and life satisfaction. For both samples, both bipolar

Table 1

Means, Standard Deviations, and Standardized Coefficient

Alphas for Variables in Australian and Singaporean Samples

Australia Singapore

Standard Standard

Variable M SD Alpha M SD Alpha

Extraversion 26.58 6.53 .84 27.96 6.15 .81

Agreeableness 33.16a 4.41 .78 31.39a 4.32 .72

Conscientiousness 28.34a 6.15 .84 25.93a 5.96 .83

Neuroticism 19.95

a

5.54 .77 21.82

a

5.99 .79Openness to experience 29.54 5.11 .75 29.40 4.59 .70

Bipolar optimism 20.96a 4.13 .81 19.60a 4.00 .71

Unipolar optimism 10.47 2.05 .60 10.38 2.40 .65

Unipolar pessimism 7.51a 2.54 .82 8.79a 2.43 .65

State anxiety 37.60 11.79 .94 39.09 10.43 .90

Trait anxiety 41.92 9.64 .90 44.80 9.85 .89

Stress 8.27 5.21 .89 8.41 4.87 .86

Physical symptoms 27.78 19.44 .92 29.50 19.51 .91

Life satisfaction 24.38a 7.35 .92 19.88a 7.32 .85

Distraction 3.50a

1.61 .40 2.97a

0.87 .50Active 3.76a 1.86 .68 2.87a 0.88 .66

Denial 1.92a 0.96 .62 1.56a 0.71 .62

Substance 2.12a 1.26 .93 1.39a 0.77 .93

Emotional support 3.45a 1.88 .89 2.90a 1.05 .85

Instrumental support 3.72a 1.86 .86 2.86a 1.01 .91

Behavioral disengagement 2.01a 1.05 .72 1.69a 0.74 .67

Venting 3.01a 1.51 .60 2.58a 0.81 .53

Positive reframing 3.36a 1.70 .78 2.73a 1.02 .72

Planning 3.74a 1.93 .79 2.75a 0.89 .70

Humor 2.93a

1.74 .83 2.15a

0.93 .78Acceptance 3.80a 1.87 .60 3.00a 0.90 .63

Religion 2.46 1.76 .91 2.36 1.14 .85

Self-blame 3.10a 1.52 .77 2.28a 0.99 .72

Note: For Australian sampleN=189. For Singaporean sampleN=243.

a. A cross-national difference in the observed relationship based on independent sample ttest

(p


13/30


optimism and unipolar optimism are significantly correlated with agree-

ableness and life satisfaction in the positive direction. However, both bipolar

optimism and unipolar optimism are significantly correlated with conscien-

tiousness and openness to experience in the positive direction for the

Singaporean sample only. For both samples, both bipolar optimism and

unipolar optimism are significantly correlated with unipolar pessimism,

state anxiety, trait anxiety, stress, and physical symptoms in the negative

direction. In contrast, for both samples, unipolar pessimism is significantly

correlated with state anxiety, trait anxiety, stress, and physical symptoms in

the positive direction and is significantly correlated with life satisfaction in

the negative direction.

To test for cross-cultural differences in the significant predictors account-

ing for variances in the two samples after controlling for age and gender

(Hypothesis 3), two sets of five hierarchical regression analyses for each

national sample were conducted using state anxiety, trait anxiety, stress,

physical symptoms, and life satisfaction as outcome variables. To reduce

the risk of Type I error based on the number of tests, we set alpha to .001

for all hierarchical regression analyses (see Table 4).

Hierarchical regression analyses using bipolar optimism. For the first

set of hierarchical regression analysis, each hierarchical regression analysis

was conducted by entering age and gender as covariates in the first step,

Table 2

Life Orientation TestRevised Factor Loading

for Australian and Singaporean Samples

Australia Singapore

Item Content Factor 1 Factor 2 Factor 1 Factor 2

Pessimism

I rarely count on good things happening to me. .79 .65

If something can go wrong for me, it will. .67 .62

I hardly ever expect things to go my way. .82 .54

OptimismIn uncertain times, I usually expect the best. .32 .62

Overall, I expect more good things .72 .60

to happen to me than bad.

Im always optimistic about my future. .59 .56

Note: Extraction method: Principal axis factoring for both samples. Rotation method: Oblimin

with Kaiser normalization for Singaporean sample.



14/30

263

Table3

CorrelationAmongPersonality,

Optimism,Pessimism,

State-TraitAnxiety,Stress,PhysicalSymptom

s,

andL

ifeSatisfactioninAust

ralian(UpperTriangle)andSingaporean(Low

erTriangle)Samples

Variable

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

1.Extraversion

.08

.12

-.24**

.14

.31*

*

.26**

-.29**

-.26**

-.32**

-.05

-.02

.32**

2.Agreeableness

.15**

.32**

-.26**

.10

.34*

*

.26**

-.35**

-.36**

-.26**

-.09

-.32**

.23**

3.Conscientiousness

.06

.24**

-.11

.19*

.09

.07

-.09

-.16*

-.21**

.01

-.23**

.05

4.Neuroticism

-.24**

-.29**

-.32**

.07

-.46*

*

-.40**

.43**

.58**

.64**

.51**

.41**

-.38**

5.Opennessto

.17**

.05

.03

.01

-.09

-.08

.08

.06

.13

.15*

.17*

-.03

experience

6.Bipolaroptim

ism

.36**

.16*

.29**

-.36**

.22**

.87**

-.92**

-.48**

-.62**

-.33**

-.34**

.59**

7.Unipolaroptimism

.33**

.24**

.27**

-.28**

.23**

.83*

*

-.61**

-.44**

-.53**

-.29**

-.27**

.53**

8.Unipolarpess

imism

-.27**

-.03

-.21**

.32**

-.14*

-.83*

*

-.38**

.43**

.58**

.23**

.34**

-.53**

9.Stateanxiety

-.32**

-.29**

-.28**

.54**

-.10

-.48*

*

-.40**

.40**

.73**

.57**

.49**

-.54**

10.Traitanxiety

-.38**

-.29**

-.34**

.67**

-.12

-.57*

*

-.44**

.52**

.75**

.59**

.55**

-.68**

11.Stress

-.21**

-.18**

-.13**

.56**

-.08

-.29*

*

-.20**

.28**

.54**

.61**

.55**

-.37**

12.Physicalsymptoms

-.20**

-.14*

-.28**

.31**

.00

-.33*

*

-.21**

.33**

.40**

.42**

.34**

-.29**

13.Lifesatisfacti

on

.14*

.25**

.20**

-.34**

.02

.38*

*

.36**

-.28**

-.44**

-.47**

-.25**

-.10

*p

Date post:	03-Jun-2018
Category:	Documents
Upload:	brainy12345
View:	226 times
Download:	0 times

12. Personality, Health, And Coping

Documents